Ex Parte Jung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12634289 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/634,289 12/09/2009
68103 7590 04/04/2016
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Han Chui JUNG
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0203-1090 7255
EXAMINER
KHAN, USMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAN CHUL JUNG and SUN AE KIM
Appeal2014-008379
Application 12/634,289
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 20-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to
[a] terminal having a camera and a method of processing
an image in the camera are disclosed. The method includes
collecting, using a camera, a user image captured at a user focal
length and a link image captured at a selective focal length, and
storing the user image and the link image by linking the link
image with the user image. Using this method, a user can capture
Appeal2014-008379
Application 12/634,289
a subject and circumstances around the subject when the image
is captured.
Abstract.
Claim 20 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
20. A mobile terminal, comprising:
a first image capturing unit;
a second image capturing unit;
a display unit; and
a controller configured to
acquire, using the first image capturing unit, a first
image in response to an input,
acquire, using the second image capturing unit, a
second image in response to the input, and
control the display unit to present the first image
overlapping the second image.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 20-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Elberbaum (US 2002/0152557 Al; pub. Oct. 24, 2002)
and Paxton (US 4,989,078; iss. Jan. 29, 1991). Final Act. 3-8. 1
ANALYSIS
Claims 20--37
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 20-37 as unpatentable over Elberbaum and Paxton.
Appellants contend neither Elberbaum nor Paxton disclose acquiring a
first image in response to an input and acquiring a second image in response
1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to ( 1) the Final Action, mailed
November 27, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed April 28, 2014
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed June 3, 2014 ("Ans."); and
(4) the Reply Brief filed August 1, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2014-008379
Application 12/634,289
to the same input. See App. Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 2--4. According to
Appellants,
Elberbaum very clearly discloses that "decoder 38 ... feeds
different control commands to the microprocessor circuit 21 ... "
emphasis added. Thus, it is not clear how the Office can assert
that Elberbaum's element 38 discloses acquiring a first image in
response to an input and acquiring a second image in response to
the input when it, in fact, discloses different control commands.
Moreover, it is not clear that any of these control commands is
an input for acquiring an image, let alone for acquiring a first
image and a second image.
Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 3--4.
This argument, however, mischaracterizes the teachings of
Elberbaum. Namely, while Elberbaum teaches feeding "different control
commands" to the microprocessor, a skilled artisan would understand the
inputted commands to be directed to different functions or features of the
system. See e.g., Elberbaum, i-f 86 (identifying exemplary commands such
as tilting, panning, zooming and "commanding the start or the stop of the
transmission of a video signal"); Elberbaum, Abstract (noting that both
cameras, i.e., image capturing units, are moved co-jointly). As such,
Elberbaum at least suggests starting the video signal transmissions from both
cameras, i.e., the acquiring of first and second images, in response to a
single input command to the microprocessor, i.e., controller.
Moreover, as the Examiner points out, the claims merely recite an
input without further limitation as to what element receives or provides the
input. As such, even if different driver signals were provided to each image
capturing unit, a single input to the microprocessor that for example, starts
the recording or transmission of the video signal (Elberbaum i-f 86), would
satisfy the limitations that each image capturing unit acquires an image in
3
Appeal2014-008379
Application 12/634,289
response to the input. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in finding Elberbaum teaches the recited input limitations.
With respect to Paxton, Appellants assert "Paxton makes no
disclosure of how an image is captured by either optical section, or, more
importantly, how a first image and a second image are captured in response
to an input." App. Br. 4. Further, Appellants maintain Paxton's setting of
shutters and diaphragms to record images while operating in unison is not
disclosure of an input or "that the input is responsible for capturing a first
image and a second image." App. Br. 4--5; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
We find this argument unavailing. As the Examiner explains,
Paxton clearly teaches that a plurality of images are acquired
with an input as discussed in column 2 liens [sic] 24 - 58 where
it is stated that the shutter driver 17 and the diaphragm driver 15
thus commonly operate both shutter 16 and 16' and both
diaphragms 14 and 14'. As can be seen from figure 1 the
computer 22 and/ or master oscillator 61 provides an input signal
to control the system timing 58 for controlling the image sensors
11 and 11 '. Also, Paxton clearly teaches in column 4 lines 25 -
39 that the recording is done in union. As can be clearly seen
from figure 1 the head driver item 68 controls both the heads 70
and 72 for acquiring.
Ans. 3. In other words, because the images are captured with the same
input, the inputted shutter and diaphragm setting, the images are captured in
response to the input. We also note Paxton at least teaches recording the
images in pairs, or, in other words, a single record command or input would
result in the capturing of the first and second images together. See Paxton,
col. 4, 11. 28-31 ). Appellants' blanket assertions that Paxton fails to teach
"how the images are acquired" fail to persuasively respond to these findings.
4
Appeal2014-008379
Application 12/634,289
We agree with the Examiner, then, that Paxton additionally teaches the
disputed input limitations.
Appellants next assert the cited combination renders Elberbaum
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and that there is no motivation to
combine Elberbaum with Paxton. App. Br. 5-8; Reply 5-7. In particular,
because Elberbaum outputs a plurality of signals that are individual inputs to
respective cameras, modifying Elberbaum to use a single input would
"undermine the use of a plurality of signals taught by Elberbaum." App.
Br. 6. Additionally, Appellants challenge the Examiner's reliance on
improved operation and/or image quality to support the cited combination.
App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 7-8. According to Appellants,
it is not clear how the use of a different input (i.e., a single input
versus a plurality of inputs) would have any impact on image
quality, let alone how it would improve image quality as the
Office asserts. Appellants assert that modifying Elberbaum' s
input would have no impact on image quality as nothing has
changed which would result in any improvement (e.g., an
improved type of lens, an improved focusing operation, etc.).
App. Br. 8.
We disagree. As discussed above, Appellants' characterization that
Elberbaum necessarily requires different inputs for acquiring first and
second images is unsupported. See Elberbaum, ,-r 86, Abstract. Moreover,
"[t ]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
5
Appeal2014-008379
Application 12/634,289
review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining
the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their
specific structures."). Rather, "if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
The Examiner explains both Elberbaum and Paxton are directed to
capturing images in a response to a signal, modifying Elberbaum to use the
shutters and diaphragms in unison "will provide the added benefit of a
system with improved operation and/ or image quality by adding the element
for producing a stereoscopic image while also minimizing disruptions as
taught in line column 1 line 50 - column 2 line 2 of Paxton." Ans. 4. For
example, "the stereoscopic image will give the image of Elberbaum a three-
dimensional depth from given two-dimensional images hence more
accurately givmg the images perception of depth." Ans. 4--5.
Further, as discussed above, Elberbaum also at least suggests using an
input command to start the transmission of the video signal from both
cameras. See Elberbaum, ,-r 86. As such, we agree that it would have been
readily apparent to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify
Elberbaum to acquire first and second images in response to single input, as
suggested by Paxton, to improve operation and/or image quality of
Elberbaum.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claims 20-37 are unpatentable over Elberbaum and Paxton.
CONCLUSION
6
Appeal2014-008379
Application 12/634,289
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 20-37 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 20-37.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7